TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-09 > 1221681678


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Repository for published source (was - Re: DeathReg. Sourcing Sorrows from a Long Time Lurker)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:01:18 -0500
References: <200891792541.836927@Terry3> <C2F69137E652461BAE4C51684E8EE056@CharlieXX> <48D134B7.9070807@sprynet.com><ac9e8c670809171149s750a736axba2b0fe123c0d13e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ac9e8c670809171149s750a736axba2b0fe123c0d13e@mail.gmail.com>


Hi, Doreen:

I'm not quoting your message, but your basic point, that we need
to be careful to ensure that those who follow us can understand
what we meant, is well taken. This may be especially so in
regards to source documentation.

In my case (everyone is different) the data I have is so
overwhelmingly New England, and specifically Vermont, centered,
that someone from another country would have to be completely
unobservant not to recognize that. Take a look at the place index
for my site at

http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy2/by_place.htm

and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that a future
genealogist will be able to infer from the locations mentioned
and the topics discussed what the context is for any source
document. However, my goal for myself is to assume ambiguity
unless I have thought about it and have reasonably rejected the
likelihood. In other words, I default to full disclosure but am
not bound by it as a necessity. Others may take a different approach.

Darrell


This thread: